This would be valuable context for journalist to include, if true. I personally know someone who died via assisted suicide. She had terminal cancer, and went through a very thorough vetting and consultation before undergoing the process. If this person was not afforded such care, that would terrible.
The bizarre thing about this case is that no reporting outlet seems to explain why anyone was arrested. Assisted suicide is legal in the country under these circumstances.
Red flags for sure, but whenever I see stuff like this, I do wish that sex and gender could just not exist for a while. Like, wouldn’t it be cool if this dude and his new buddy could just play some gosh darn pickle ball without the subtext that he has to be cheating on his wife?
https://openai.com/index/how-openai-is-approaching-2024-worldwide-elections/
Here is a direct quote from openai:
“In addition to our efforts to direct people to reliable sources of information, we also worked to ensure ChatGPT did not express political preferences or recommend candidates even when asked explicitly.”
It’s not a conspiracy. It was explicitly thier policy not to have the ai discuss these subjects in meaningful detail leading up to the election, even when the facts were not up for debate. Everyone using gpt during that period of time was unlikely to receive meaningful information on anything Trump related, such as the legitimacy of Biden’s election. I know because I tried.
This is ostentatiously there to protect voters from fake news. I’m sure it does in some cases, but I’m sure China would say the same thing.
I’m not pro China, I’m suggesting that every country engages in these shenanigans.
Edit it is obvious that a 100 billion dollar company like openai with it’s multude of partnerships with news companies could have made gpt communicate accurate and genuinely critical news regarding Trump, but that would be bad for business.
Perhaps now it is, but leading up to the election, I found gpt would outright refuse to discuss Trump in voice mode. Meta ai too. It was very frustrating. It would start, and then respond with something like, “I’m not able to talk about that, yet.”
https://www.wired.com/story/google-and-microsofts-chatbots-refuse-election-questions/
There are plenty of examples of Ai either refusing to discuss subjects of the elections (I remember meta ai basically just saying “I’m learning how to respond to these questions.” Or in the above case, just hand waving away clear issues of wrong doing.
Chat gpt advanced voice mode would constantly activate its guardrails when asked about trump or “politically charged” topics.
Incidentally, no Western ai would make a statement on Donald Trump’s crimes leading up to the election. Ai propaganda is a serious issue. In China the government enforces it, in America, billionaires.
https://fortworthaviationmuseum.com/flight-simulator/
I found a picture of a similar device. No idea if it’s a photo op or was really used like the picture suggest.
I could be entirely wrong about this, as it’s a dim memory, but I think this sort of device was used as a pilot teaching tool in WWII.
Exposure to violence is bad. Fostering a society where violence is commonplace, bad. Exporting violence to places and people unseen, all bad.
but I’m not really sure that illegal or extra-judicial killings are always wrong. Sometimes evil people are protected or above the law. If a Russian citizen shot Vladimir Putin dead tomorrow, I’d be happy with it. I’d be happy to see a sandy hook parent kill Alex Jones, if they could do it without consequence.
It’s not that I believe that murder should be legal, Nor do I believe in capital punishment. Institutional violence is bad for the reasons I listed earlier. But, a lone gunman shooting an evil man is not institutionalized violence.